LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-117

KANTILAL CHHOTALAL PATEL Vs. CHAIRMAN/MANAGER

Decided On March 28, 2022
Kantilal Chhotalal Patel Appellant
V/S
CHAIRMAN/MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the captioned writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order dtd. 16/11/2019 passed in the respective recovery applications seeking amount of Leave Encashment as per the settlement dtd. 1/10/2002, which is confirmed by the award dtd. 24/10/2002.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the recovery applications are rejected on the ground of maintainability of such applications under the provisions of Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act "). He has submitted that so far as the issue of limitation raised by the respondent-Corporation is concerned, the same is held in his favour, however, the applications have been rejected for the reason that the provisions of the I.D. Act will not apply since the respondent is a Cooperative Bank and the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short "the BIR Act").

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya, while placing reliance on the division bench of High Court of Bombay rendered in the case of C.K. Iypunny vs R.N.Kulkarni , AIR 1964 (BOM) 188, has submitted that an application under sec. 33C(2) of the I.D. Act for recovery of money which is due under an award or settlement passed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is maintainable. He has also placed reliance on Sec. 120A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and has submitted that the provisions of the I.D.Act cannot in any manner affect the said Act. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of D.S.Vasavada vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner and Ors., 1985 G.L.H. 157. It is submitted that since in the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.7359 of 2009, on which reliance is placed while rejecting the writ petition, this Court was not apprised the aforesaid judgment and the provision of sec. 120B of the BIR Act, and hence the same may not be considered.